Published 6:47 am, Tuesday, February 7, 2012

No one in Michigan would argue that the state’s road system is slowly falling apart and in need of an influx of money for repairs.

Delaying those repairs would be foolish, since fixing the roads and bridges now will cost far less now than if the work is delayed and the infrastructure is allowed to deteriorate even more.

Part of the problem with the current method of funding roads is that the per-gallon gas tax is set at a fixed rate — at 19 cents — even as the cost of gasoline has skyrocketed. Meanwhile, vehicles have become more fuel efficient, meaning fewer trips to the gas station for motorists. That has meant that income for roads has not grown at a rate that has kept pace with the need for repairs.

Another problem is the current 6 percent sales tax on gas purchases currently goes into the general fund, rather than also helping pay for roads.

The funding shortfall has led Gov. Rick Snyder to push for tax hikes to raise more than $1 billion a year for roads. Proposals introduced last week in the Legislature call for taxing gas on the wholesale price, which would result in motorists paying about 9 cents more, or 28 cents per gallon. The proposals also would hike the annual vehicle registration fee by an average of 67 percent, or roughly $60 per vehicle.

While some form of new revenue is needed for road and bridge repairs, the hike on registration fees would be excessive for many Michigan residents. Already, a number of motorists are risking driving without new plate tabs due to the cost and the economic hard times. Many also are finding it difficult to pay for their car insurance, in part because Michigan’s no-fault insurance system requires insurers to cover up to a lifetime of medical and rehabilitative costs for victims of crashes. Motorists were forced to pay $145 per vehicle, not per policy, in 2011 to cover the cost of this requirement.

If lawmakers simply add $60 to the vehicle registration fee without providing Michigan motorists some relief in terms of insurance costs, they will raise more money for roads, but they also will put a new and significant burden on those struggling to make ends meet in the state’s still recovering economy.

By saying this, we are not endorsing legislation that would do away with catastrophic coverage. We are merely saying that taxpayers, particularly low-income taxpayers, cannot continue to bear the brunt of the road repairs without some type of relief elsewhere.